English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Support > support.Hardware

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 27 April 2011, 18:33   #1
Claw22000
Registered User
Claw22000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. Paul, MN/USA
Age: 41
Posts: 222
020 030 040?

If I understand this right each of these processors are twice as fast as their previous versions at the same Mhz?

If I'm wrong please correct me so I can understand this better.

Thanks
Claw22000 is offline  
Old 27 April 2011, 20:54   #2
mech
Registered User
mech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: texas,usa
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claw22000 View Post
If I understand this right each of these processors are twice as fast as their previous versions at the same Mhz?

If I'm wrong please correct me so I can understand this better.

Thanks
I don't know if i would say twice as fast as the previous,but each series you move up is a good speed gain. for example the 030/50 vs 040/40 is quite a difference.
Design of the accelerator in general makes quite a difference also.
mech is offline  
Old 27 April 2011, 22:30   #3
rkauer
I hate potatos and shirts
rkauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sao Leopoldo / Brazil
Age: 53
Posts: 3,482
Send a message via MSN to rkauer Send a message via Yahoo to rkauer
The 020 & 030 are almost the same processor. Minor upgrade on the way registers wands around and bit speed increase.

The 040 is another story. A 25MHz unit will surpass a 50MHz clocked 030 with both legs tied to the back.

Only for information purposes on the 680x0 family:

68000 is the the first, count it as a major revision.

Odd x number means a minor revision, so the 010 is a bit better than the 000, 030 is a bit better than 020 (more speed clock possibility, internal MMU).

The 040 & 060 doesn't have minor revisions, albeit the fact the 060 is just a 040 with dual pipeline and more clock (IIRC, Motorola almost labelled the 060 as 68050).
rkauer is offline  
Old 27 April 2011, 22:45   #4
Claw22000
Registered User
Claw22000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. Paul, MN/USA
Age: 41
Posts: 222
So its like 286 386 486. Where the big jump was from 286 to 386 bit from 386 to 486 not so much till the DX series. Pretty interesting. Thanks for the tidbits.
Claw22000 is offline  
Old 28 April 2011, 03:13   #5
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 3,315
I personally found the upgrade from 386 to 486 much more beneficial than going from a 286 to a 386..

Then again, the 386 was an SX (did they even make a 386DX?)
Hewitson is online now  
Old 28 April 2011, 03:20   #6
8bitbubsy
Registered User

8bitbubsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
did they even make a 386DX?
Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80386#i386DX
8bitbubsy is offline  
Old 28 April 2011, 04:58   #7
OverDose
Lover of teh classic
OverDose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
I personally found the upgrade from 386 to 486 much more beneficial than going from a 286 to a 386..

Then again, the 386 was an SX (did they even make a 386DX?)
That reminds me of the friend who went for the higher clocked 386 over a 486, because more megahertz = faster. This is something that still hasn't gone away, entirely (like comparing a Pentium 3.2GHz against an i7 2GHz).
OverDose is offline  
Old 29 April 2011, 12:13   #8
pandy71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PL
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
Then again, the 386 was an SX (did they even make a 386DX?)
At the beginning only 386 was present - later they (Intel) add cheaper 386 with external 16 bit data bus ie SX, normal 386 was named DX (due full 32 bit bus) - later 486 was available as SX and DX but only one difference was lack of the FPU unit (on 486SX disabled on die - faulty silicon area and introduced 487 CPU with modification that required 486 on MoBo anyway)

Quote:
Originally Posted by OverDose View Post
That reminds me of the friend who went for the higher clocked 386 over a 486, because more megahertz = faster. This is something that still hasn't gone away, entirely (like comparing a Pentium 3.2GHz against an i7 2GHz).
386DX 40MHz was comparable to 486SX 20 - 25MHz
pandy71 is offline  
Old 29 April 2011, 13:48   #9
Claw22000
Registered User
Claw22000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. Paul, MN/USA
Age: 41
Posts: 222
Yes I remember that stupid rizer addon. I also remember thinking it was a waist of time considering when it came out pent 66mhz were out which was the 586. Intel wasn't alowed to patent the number hence there change to pentium.
Claw22000 is offline  
Old 30 April 2011, 06:43   #10
OverDose
Lover of teh classic
OverDose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claw22000 View Post
Intel wasn't alowed to patent the number hence there change to pentium.
Trademark, not patent

The purpose of trademarks is to protect branding (and they last as long as you keep using them, unlike a patent which runs out after a number of years). The problem was people like AMD were releasing chips with the 386 486 numbers, and when it went to court the judge says, yes they can do that because you can't trademark a number.

The effect was that Intel was spending money marketing their 386, 486 etc 'brand', and other companies were piggy-backing on this. The judge said that there was nothing legal to stop this. So, Intel said feck this for a game of skittles, and spent big moola making and promoting their new 'Pentium' brand.

Now since they couldn't use numbers of the chips to say 'bigger number = better' they started to put more emphasis on the other numbers like clock speed. Pretty much until the early P4s and the Pentium M, it was always the case that bigger number = faster CPU.
OverDose is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jaguar XJ200 - 020 / 030 support - speed patch viddi Games images which need to be WHDified 15 11 May 2013 14:18
Looking for a 030 or 040 Board Lozspd4 MarketPlace 0 30 September 2012 23:09
020/030 swapable? Nikolaj_sofus support.Hardware 6 25 November 2010 14:56
030 - 040 upgrade, worth it? fitzsteve support.Hardware 42 22 April 2010 09:22
030 or 040 which is best to relieve my nicoteen cravings pubzombie New to Emulation or Amiga scene 24 15 January 2009 09:06

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 13:23.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.09313 seconds with 15 queries